Why Todd Akin Must Stay In The Missouri Senate Race

If Todd Akin should withdraw as a candidate for the U.S. Senate, then Barack Obama should withdraw as a candidate for president of the United States. Obama’s “You didn’t build that” assertion was far more egregious than Akin’s widely publicized remark about abortion.

Here is the sentence that Akin said that provoked the uproar. It was an “off the cuff” comment during a radio interview, not part of a prepared speech.

“If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Some protested Akin’s implication that not all cases of rape are “legitimate”. These people need to get over their outrage and recall the case of the Duke University lacrosse players who were falsely accused of rape. Akin’s use of the modifier, “legitimate” was completely reasonable.

The second part of Akin’s statement was factually incorrect, and probably contained an element of wishful thinking on his part. For those, like Akin, who are opposed to abortion in all cases, it would be really convenient if women who were raped could not get pregnant. This would eliminate an ethical (and policy) dilemma for them. However, it is not true. Women who are raped can and do become pregnant.

In making his fallacious statement about reproductive biology, Akin was probably just repeating something that he had heard somewhere. However, afterward, Akin quickly admitted his error, withdrew the statement, and apologized for any upset that his words may have caused.

So, why wasn’t that the end of the matter? Why are “leaders” of various kinds, on both the Right and the Left, calling for Akin to renounce his candidacy, when they aren’t doing the same in the case of Obama? And, while we’re at it, why aren’t there demands that Joe Biden drop out of the race for his recent statement regarding conservatives that, “They're going to put y'all back in chains”?

There are three reasons that Akin’s retraction/apology did not end the matter: 1) Akin’s “pro-life” policy position is politically incorrect; 2) the political correctness movement is determined to get its way “by any means necessary”, including intimidation, demonization, and personal destruction; and, 3) some conservative leaders have allowed themselves to become so cowed by political correctness that they are afraid to openly challenge the progressive agenda.

Let’s get a little perspective here.

Todd Akin has been elected to Congress by the people of the second district of Missouri six times. He received more votes in the Missouri primary election than any of his seven opponents, thus winning the Republican Senate nomination.

Akin was born on July 5, 1947. This means that he has lived for approximately two billion seconds. Akin spent six of those seconds making a comment that was factually incorrect, and which he later retracted. Akin’s words caused no harm, unless you believe that vibrating the air with his voice contributed to global warming. And yet, to the political correctness movement, this one six-second statement is more than enough justification for overturning an election.

Some conservative leaders appear to be willing to go even farther than the progressives on this. Karl Rove reportedly said, “We should sink Todd Akin. If he’s found mysteriously murdered, don’t look for my whereabouts!” (Rove later apologized to Akin, but notice that Rove’s first, reflexive reaction was to kowtow to the politically correct line.)

So, why do progressives feel a need to demonize and destroy their conservative opponents, rather than merely debate with them and let the people decide? Why do liberals seek to suppress free speech, and maintain that some subjects cannot even be discussed?

The reason is that progressives are trying to assemble a voting majority consisting of self-identified victims, and they can’t afford to have their strategy exposed. The progressives need more time, and losing control of the White House and the Senate in the upcoming elections would represent a huge setback to their cause.

One weapon in the political correctness arsenal is to have spokesmen claim that they “were offended” (or, better yet, “deeply offended”) by whatever statement their target happened to have made. The spokesmen imply that they were somehow harmed by the words that their target spoke. There were many such claims regarding the Akin comment.

So, what does it really mean, “to be offended”? It means that someone said something, you assigned a meaning to it, and that meaning triggered an upset within you. Next, you concluded that the unpleasant feelings associated with your upset were caused by the other person’s words. You then might demand that the other person be punished because you became upset (offended).

If mere words could harm an adult, the same statement made in (say) Chinese would have the same impact—and it does not. An upset is never caused by what was said, but always by a person’s reaction to what was said.

One part of the progressive agenda is to try to establish that various groups of people are so psychologically fragile that they can be harmed by mere words. This, in turn, would give progressives something that they are desperately seeking: a justification for restricting free speech. Progressivism is the time-release form of communism, and totalitarians need to control what people say, and even think.

Sorry, progressives, but the motto of a free people must be, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never harm me”. If someone physically strikes you, you may be due compensation. If someone speaks words that you react to, you are not. At most, you may be owed an apology.

Political correctness turns justice on its head. Mere words merit punishment, but deeds causing tangible harm get a pass, so long as the perpetrator remains politically correct (i.e., toes the liberal line).

If America is to have a future, it must come from the Republican Party. Any nation governed by progressives will eventually turn into Greece. Accordingly, the Republicans need to get their act together. In the public interest, Unconventional Logic will offer its assistance.

The Republican Party must make itself the natural home of people that think of themselves as citizens. A citizen has responsibilities, as well as rights. Accordingly, a citizen’s life plan will be directed toward meeting his or her responsibilities. These include being economically self-supporting, and providing fully for any children that he or she might bring into the world.

Starting under Lyndon Johnson, the Democratic Party has been remaking itself into the natural home of people who consider themselves to be victims. It also appeals to those who identify with victim consciousness, and those who seek to profit from taking care of self-identified victims.

Here, the word “victim” is not used in the sense of “the victim of a crime” or “the victim of a car accident”. In this context, “victims” means “victims of society”. They are people who have embraced victim consciousness.

Victims not only have all of the rights of citizens, but they also have rights to things that must be provided by others (e.g., food, housing, and health care). However, victims have no responsibilities. Victims cannot be expected to be self-supporting, or even to obey the law. Their victim status provides an automatic excuse for everything they do and don’t do.

Citizens confront life’s challenges by taking action; victims deal with life’s challenges by complaining, and by demanding reparations from others.

Conservatives are often mystified that liberals do not seem to be concerned about liberty. Liberty, which is basically the freedom to act without government interference, is essential to a citizen. He or she has responsibilities to meet, and needs economic freedom to make the most of his or her life.

On the other hand, liberty is of little interest to people who consider themselves to be victims. Victims are, by definition, helpless. Victims don’t act—they are acted upon. Their very survival depends upon getting assistance from others. Accordingly, victims can easily view liberty, which requires low tax rates, as threatening to their life plans, which are often based upon life-long government benefits and transfer payments.

If you want examples of progressive support for victim consciousness, look no further than the fanatical liberal opposition to commonsense measures like voter ID laws, mandatory drug testing for welfare benefits, and New York City’s “stop and frisk” program, which cut the murder rate in that city by 80%.

One reason that progressives defend illegal immigration is because they view illegal immigrants as victims, and they don’t believe that it is fair that victims be required to obey our laws. Also, progressives consider living in the U.S. and receiving taxpayer-supplied benefits to be appropriate reparations for the illegals’ victimization.

Progressives reflexively support the Palestinians against Israel, even though Israel is our ally and Palestinians shout “Death to America”. This is because liberals consider Palestinians to be victims, and therefore identify with their “plight”.

Right now, progressives are trying very hard to get women, especially single women, to view themselves as victims. “Julia”, the famous cartoon character on Obama’s campaign web site, is an archetypal victim. She is dependent upon government her entire life.

Victims can be persuaded that (e.g.) their lives will be destroyed unless other people are forced to pay for their contraceptives. Victims cannot be expected to go to Wal-Mart and buy their own birth control pills. They are, by definition, helpless to handle even the smallest life challenges on their own.

Now, to help conservatives, including Todd Akin, make the Republican Party into a party that naturally attracts all of the people who think of themselves as citizens, here is some advice.

Take out your copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Next, review the part about “…deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” and reread the Tenth Amendment.

Now, shift your policy (not personal) position regarding abortion from “pro life” to “pro referendum”. Advocate that all of the contentious “social issues” (abortion, same-sex marriage, affirmative action, etc.) be decided at the state level by a direct vote of the people. This will not please the progressive elites, who want their politically correct policies imposed upon the people by force. However, it will be widely popular.

If the Republican Party is to claim its natural majority, it must get itself out from under “the social issues”. Calling for referendums, at the state level when possible, and at the national level when necessary, is the way out of the trap.

If decided by referendum votes in the states, “first-trimester abortion on demand” would almost certainly remain legal throughout the nation. This outcome would moot the questions regarding incest and rape. Sorry, “right to lifers”, but that’s just where the electorate is on this issue.

However, the voters would probably ban “partial birth” abortions by 95% to 5% in every state in the union. Propositions to require “parental notification” would pass in most, if not all, states. And, it is very unlikely that taxpayers would be required to pay for abortions or contraceptives. Sorry, “pro choicers”.

Now, let’s return to the case of Todd Akin.

The laws of the State of Missouri do not say that the winner of a primary election shall be disqualified from running in the general election if they subsequently make an erroneous statement of fact. Accordingly, whether anyone likes it or not, Todd Akin is the legitimate Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, and he will face incumbent Claire McCaskill on November 6.

McCaskill is far to the left of the people of Missouri on most issues. She provided the 60th vote for Obamacare in the Senate. She voted for Obama’s $862 billion “stimulus” program, which actually “prevented or destroyed” millions of jobs. She is eager to vote for job-killing tax increases, and the expansion of the welfare state. She gets a grade of “F” from the National Rifle Association, while Akin gets an “A”.

Whether Todd Akin or Claire McCaskill wins the Senate seat will make no difference at all regarding whether first-trimester abortions continue to be legal. They will remain so in either case. However, regarding the issues that a Senator will actually have the ability to impact during the next six years, Todd Akin would better represent the interests of the people of Missouri.

In any case, it is the voters of Missouri that should decide this question, and not the liberal media or Republican Party bosses.

It is essential that Todd Akin remain in the Missouri Senate race. He committed no crime, and his erroneous six-second statement caused no harm. For him to withdraw under these circumstances would give the totalitarian forces of political correctness a victory that the nation can ill afford.

Indeed, it is now vital that Akin win the Senate seat in Missouri. We, the People cannot permit a double standard under which progressives are given a free pass on everything that they say and do, but a conservative can be destroyed on the basis of a single, six-second, off-the-cuff remark.

At this point, Republican leaders should devote their energies toward fighting political correctness, and not toward depriving Todd Akin of the Senate nomination that he earned by winning a free and fair election.